How is this different from a tenant taking their patio furniture with the? “It’s worth more with the patio furniture”. “The new tenants are expecting the nice patio furniture to be there!”
Plants cost money and effort and, in many cases, can be successfully transplanted to a new location. It seems to me that the tenant simply took their property with them when they left.
No idea the laws or standard practices in OP’s location but a general rule of thumb where I am is if you flipped the house upside down anything that falls to the ground goes and everything else stays-meaning anything that’s attached/affixed to the property stays (or at least should be specifically referenced in a contract as included or excluded with the rent/sale). Plants that have been planted into the ground could be reasonably expected to stay from the new renter’s perspective, they have no way of knowing that was an improvement made by the current tenant and not the landlord/owner. The landlord messed up by not having this discussion explicitly with the current tenant and just assuming they were leaving the plants. I think it would be reasonable for the new tenant to require the landlord to plant a new garden to match the old, especially if it was specifically advertised that way
Probably should have done it before the viewings so that you’re not screwing over the renters.
How is this different from a tenant taking their patio furniture with the? “It’s worth more with the patio furniture”. “The new tenants are expecting the nice patio furniture to be there!”
Plants cost money and effort and, in many cases, can be successfully transplanted to a new location. It seems to me that the tenant simply took their property with them when they left.
No idea the laws or standard practices in OP’s location but a general rule of thumb where I am is if you flipped the house upside down anything that falls to the ground goes and everything else stays-meaning anything that’s attached/affixed to the property stays (or at least should be specifically referenced in a contract as included or excluded with the rent/sale). Plants that have been planted into the ground could be reasonably expected to stay from the new renter’s perspective, they have no way of knowing that was an improvement made by the current tenant and not the landlord/owner. The landlord messed up by not having this discussion explicitly with the current tenant and just assuming they were leaving the plants. I think it would be reasonable for the new tenant to require the landlord to plant a new garden to match the old, especially if it was specifically advertised that way
Fun fact: Germans like to take their kitchen with them when they move. Cupboards, sink, everything.
Fun fact: Dutch take their flooring with them as well
“Screwing over the renters.” You mean the ones that AREN’T being made homeless?
They’re now stuck in a contract for a year in a home they might not have went with, all because they were lied to by the landparasite.
And how is that the plants’ owner’s fault? Should they have removed all their furniture from the place before pictures and viewings too?
can’t you sue the landlord for false advertising in burgerland?
Pretty sure this is UK, don’t generally see Americans saying flat.
Tough luck lol
So get mad at the parasite, not the person who likes his plants at living places.
They’re being screwed be the landlord who misled them to believe the plants were his.